NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,403 205-215, 205-215 OWNERS LTD. et al. and UNITED SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 377, R.W.D.S.U., AFL-CIO., (July 25, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Jul 25, 1994)

205-215 OWNERS LTD. et al. and UNITED SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 377, R.W.D.S.U., AFL-CIO.

314 NLRB No. 89.Case No. AO-314. July 25, 1994

Before Gould, Devaney and Browning.

Board Jurisdiction--Advisory Opinions--Pendant Proceeding Lacking.--The NLRB declined to issue an advisory opinion that had been requested by a real estate management employer due to a pendant labor litigation before a state employment relations board. However, after the state agency proceeding was withdrawn by a union, the NLRB determined that it should not enter an advisory opinion because there was no longer a proceeding pending before a state agency that would make such an immediate jurisdictional opinion necessary. Section 10(a).

Back reference: ¶1610.255.

From Text of Board’s Decision

Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations, on May 23, 1994, Petitioners 205-215 Owners Ltd. (205-215) and Paley Management Corp. (Paley) filed a petition for Advisory Opinion as to whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over their operations. In pertinent part, the petition alleges that a proceeding, Case No. SU-58689, is currently pending before the New York State Employment Relations Board (NYSERB) in which the Union is seeking recognition by 205-215 and Paley of a one-employee bargaining unit at 205-215 East 88 Street, New York, New York, a building owned by 205-215 and managed by Paley. The petition alleges additional facts concerning the nature of the business of the Petitioners, including commerce data for these two organizations.

All parties were served with a copy of the petition for Advisory Opinion, and the Union filed a response on June 23, 1944, in which it states that the petition must be dismissed and/or that the Board should decline to issue an advisory opinion. In its response, the Union also states that it has withdrawn the proceeding before the NYSERB and includes a copy of its June 22, 1994 request for withdrawal of Case No. SU-58689 before the NYSERB. [1] The Union further contends that the Petitioners have not submitted proof that they meet the Board’s jurisdictional standards and does not agree that the Petitioners are joint employers.

Having duly considered the matter, [2] we deny the petition for Advisory Opinion. The Board’s longstanding policy, baed on sound principles of administrative efficiency and economy, is that a petition for Advisory Opinion will not be entertained where, as here, there is no proceeding pending before any state agency or court which would make such an immediate jurisdictional opinion necesssary. [3]

Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for Advisory Opinion is dismissed.